I’d just like to point out that the major conferences once sat down and agreed to send 6 conference champs and 2 at large teams to the aport’s biggest bowl games and they shared a crap ton of money as a result.

5-1-2 is the same set up; the only difference is that the 6th autobid goes to the champ of 1 of 5 conferences rather than a dedicated spot for the defunct Big East.

It worked then and it can work again. Sure there were years when a league, usually the ACC, sent a crappy team but it was part of preserving the peace.

But, but, how DARE they imply the ragtag G5 can attend the beauty pageant!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(08-28-2019 09:23 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  But, but, how DARE they imply the ragtag G5 can attend the beauty pageant!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

When a G5 champion earns it they'll get a bid. Houston likely would have had they not stepped on their own crank in 2016.

(08-28-2019 09:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:23 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  But, but, how DARE they imply the ragtag G5 can attend the beauty pageant!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

When a G5 champion earns it they'll get a bid. Houston likely would have had they not stepped on their own crank in 2016.

It’s always theoretical though. I won’t believe it until it does happen. Until then I will continue to support a format that allows all deserving teams a shot at the championship. That means undefeateds and conference champs. If you didn’t win your conference, tough ****.

(08-28-2019 09:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:23 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  But, but, how DARE they imply the ragtag G5 can attend the beauty pageant!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

When a G5 champion earns it they'll get a bid. Houston likely would have had they not stepped on their own crank in 2016.

That's the thing though, it likely will never be seen as "earned" while the good ol boys club still calls the shots

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(08-28-2019 09:38 PM)Baylorbears11 Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:23 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  But, but, how DARE they imply the ragtag G5 can attend the beauty pageant!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

When a G5 champion earns it they'll get a bid. Houston likely would have had they not stepped on their own crank in 2016.

It’s always theoretical though. I won’t believe it until it does happen. Until then I will continue to support a format that allows all deserving teams a shot at the championship. That means undefeateds and conference champs. If you didn’t win your conference, tough ****.

When the playoff was announced folks said the ACC didn't have a chance to earn a bid very often, and it most certainly would require them being undefeated. Yet here we are with the ACC being one of the only two conferences to be included every year and in at least two of the years the ACC rep had a loss.

Making the playoff is supposed to be hard because being one of the four best programs in college football is hard. If you want a participation trophy play in a local rec league.

(08-28-2019 09:40 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:23 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  But, but, how DARE they imply the ragtag G5 can attend the beauty pageant!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

When a G5 champion earns it they'll get a bid. Houston likely would have had they not stepped on their own crank in 2016.

That's the thing though, it likely will never be seen as "earned" while the good ol boys club still calls the shots

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Yet I provided a perfect example of how a G5 program could have earned a bid. Had Houston not stepped on their own crank multiple times in 2016 they would have made it. Their SOS was solid enough that had they ran the table they would have been included.

(08-28-2019 09:38 PM)Baylorbears11 Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:23 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  But, but, how DARE they imply the ragtag G5 can attend the beauty pageant!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

When a G5 champion earns it they'll get a bid. Houston likely would have had they not stepped on their own crank in 2016.

It’s always theoretical though. I won’t believe it until it does happen. Until then I will continue to support a format that allows all deserving teams a shot at the championship. That means undefeateds and conference champs. If you didn’t win your conference, tough ****.

Nope. Too bad. Teams aren’t entitled to anything. Especially if they play in the minor leagues.

People are never happy. Things are much better than they were 25 years ago. Eventually we might have 6 and then 8 teams. Should always be top 8, regardless of conference titles.

(08-28-2019 09:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:38 PM)Baylorbears11 Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:23 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  But, but, how DARE they imply the ragtag G5 can attend the beauty pageant!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

When a G5 champion earns it they'll get a bid. Houston likely would have had they not stepped on their own crank in 2016.

It’s always theoretical though. I won’t believe it until it does happen. Until then I will continue to support a format that allows all deserving teams a shot at the championship. That means undefeateds and conference champs. If you didn’t win your conference, tough ****.

When the playoff was announced folks said the ACC didn't have a chance to earn a bid very often, and it most certainly would require them being undefeated. Yet here we are with the ACC being one of the only two conferences to be included every year and in at least two of the years the ACC rep had a loss.

Making the playoff is supposed to be hard because being one of the four best programs in college football is hard. If you want a participation trophy play in a local rec league.

There is a difference between hard and impossible. When you can win every game for 2 straight years and not get in---its basically impossible.

(08-28-2019 09:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:40 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:23 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  But, but, how DARE they imply the ragtag G5 can attend the beauty pageant!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

When a G5 champion earns it they'll get a bid. Houston likely would have had they not stepped on their own crank in 2016.

That's the thing though, it likely will never be seen as "earned" while the good ol boys club still calls the shots

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Yet I provided a perfect example of how a G5 program could have earned a bid. Had Houston not stepped on their own crank multiple times in 2016 they would have made it. Their SOS was solid enough that had they ran the table they would have been included.

People say that all the time--and then talk about how the UCF 2017 undefeated season was simply accomplished against too weak a schedule to warrant inclusion in the CFP. The reality? The UCF 2017 schedule actually had a higher SOS than the Houston 2016 schedule. I can guarantee you that had Houston gone undefeated---the committee would have simply done their patented somber head shake when asked about Houston and explained how much they respected the teams accomplishments---but the #76 SOS simply provided too weak a resume to warrant inclusion. Keep in mind---thats exactly what the Committee said about UCF's #72 ranked SOS in 2017 (which was 4 slots stronger than the SOS of the 2016 Houston schedule). Mark my words---barring some sort of massive reform in the way the Committee is structured----there will never ever be a G5 in the CFP during the 12 years of the current system.

https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sa...2017/team/

(08-28-2019 09:21 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’d just like to point out that the major conferences once sat down and agreed to send 6 conference champs and 2 at large teams to the aport’s biggest bowl games and they shared a crap ton of money as a result.

5-1-2 is the same set up; the only difference is that the 6th autobid goes to the champ of 1 of 5 conferences rather than a dedicated spot for the defunct Big East.

It worked then and it can work again. Sure there were years when a league, usually the ACC, sent a crappy team but it was part of preserving the peace.

You're kidding right? The BCS and CFP guarantee nobody a spot in the playoffs. They only guaranteed each AQ/P5 conference a spot in a Major/NY6 bowl. The only difference is that under the CFP, the G5 is guaranteed a spot in a NY6 bowl, whereas under the BCS a spot was assured only if the G5 team met certain rankings criteria.

A 5-1-2 playoff system would be a radical departure from both the CFP and BCS.

(08-29-2019 02:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:40 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:23 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  But, but, how DARE they imply the ragtag G5 can attend the beauty pageant!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

When a G5 champion earns it they'll get a bid. Houston likely would have had they not stepped on their own crank in 2016.

That's the thing though, it likely will never be seen as "earned" while the good ol boys club still calls the shots

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Yet I provided a perfect example of how a G5 program could have earned a bid. Had Houston not stepped on their own crank multiple times in 2016 they would have made it. Their SOS was solid enough that had they ran the table they would have been included.

People say that all the time--and then talk about how the UCF 2017 undefeated season was simply accomplished against too weak a schedule to warrant inclusion in the CFP. The reality? The UCF 2017 schedule actually had a higher SOS than the Houston 2016 schedule. I can guarantee you that had Houston gone undefeated---the committee would have simply done their patented somber head shake when asked about Houston and explained how much they respected the teams accomplishments---but the #76 SOS simply provided too weak a resume to warrant inclusion. Keep in mind---thats exactly what the Committee said about UCF's #72 ranked SOS in 2017 (which was 4 slots stronger than the SOS of the 2016 Houston schedule). Mark my words---barring some sort of massive reform in the way the Committee is structured----there will never ever be a G5 in the CFP during the 12 years of the current system.

There's one critical factor that IMO makes Kaplony right and you wrong about Houston 2016: When it comes to SOS, particularly for a G5 team, while the overall value is important, what's equally important are the best teams that you played.

Because with a G5 team with a gaudy record achieved against a soft schedule, the unanswered question is "could they have posted that record if they had to play some top teams"? Because that's typically who a G5 hasn't proved themselves against: If it comes down to 12-0 Alabama vs 12-0 Memphis or 12-0 North Texas, what is the difference? Both teams beat some cupcakes. Both teams also beat some decent teams, teams ranked between like 25 and 50. What Alabama probably did and Memphis or North Texas didn't was beat a couple TOP teams. Alabama probably beat a #5 Georgia or a #7 LSU. Memphis didn't play anyone like that, so that's the unanswered issue.

So it's better to beat three teams ranked 80, 90, and 5 than teams ranked 50, 50, 50. The latter set represents a tougher average/overall SOS, but provided no tests against top-level competition, the former did.

In 2016, Houston did just that. They happened to play Oklahoma and Louisville, teams that finished #7 and #13 in the final CFP rankings and beat both soundly. So I think there's little doubt that had they run the table, they would have made the top 4, instead of Washington. Houston actually beat a P5 champion, which is what the committee and the rest of us want to see.

In contrast, in 2017, UCF did not have those kinds of skins on the wall. While their overall SOS was slightly better than Houston's in 2016, they had not proven themselves against any national P5 powers. The only team they beat that finished in the final CFP rankings was #20 Memphis, and they did so unconvincingly, winning at home in double overtime while giving up like 700 yards or something. IIRC, the only other team they played that was ranked in the CFP at any time that year was USF, and again it was unconvincing - very close win at home while giving up a thousand yards or something. So not only did UCF not play any playoff contenders, the weakly-ranked teams they did play they beat by the skin of their teeth **.

Houston not just beat the #7 and #13 teams, they did so convincingly.

Nothing about UCF's 2017 season suggested that they could hang with other top 4 quality teams in the playoffs. In contrast, Houston's results would have.

To me, that is what's most important about their respective schedules, not the overall SOS.





** One could argue that UCF was hampered because anti-G5 bias meant that Memphis and USF were themselves under-rated. But the bowl results don't support that - Memphis lost their bowl game played at home to a 7-5 Iowa State team, while USF barely beat a 6-6 Texas Tech team in their bowl game.

(08-28-2019 09:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:40 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:23 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  But, but, how DARE they imply the ragtag G5 can attend the beauty pageant!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

When a G5 champion earns it they'll get a bid. Houston likely would have had they not stepped on their own crank in 2016.

That's the thing though, it likely will never be seen as "earned" while the good ol boys club still calls the shots

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Yet I provided a perfect example of how a G5 program could have earned a bid. Had Houston not stepped on their own crank multiple times in 2016 they would have made it. Their SOS was solid enough that had they ran the table they would have been included.

Personally, I'm doubtful that Houston would have gotten in anyway. My guess is the committee still puts a 12-1 Washington team in.

Regardless, once in 5 years and only if the team goes perfect with an unusual schedule doesn't really make the case that a playoff is accessible.

I'm fine if they just do 5+3 instead with an unwritten agreement that in most cases an undefeated G5 gets in as long as it's reasonable to do so. But a 5+1+2 wouldn't be bad either.

(08-29-2019 10:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-29-2019 02:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:40 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  When a G5 champion earns it they'll get a bid. Houston likely would have had they not stepped on their own crank in 2016.

That's the thing though, it likely will never be seen as "earned" while the good ol boys club still calls the shots

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Yet I provided a perfect example of how a G5 program could have earned a bid. Had Houston not stepped on their own crank multiple times in 2016 they would have made it. Their SOS was solid enough that had they ran the table they would have been included.

People say that all the time--and then talk about how the UCF 2017 undefeated season was simply accomplished against too weak a schedule to warrant inclusion in the CFP. The reality? The UCF 2017 schedule actually had a higher SOS than the Houston 2016 schedule. I can guarantee you that had Houston gone undefeated---the committee would have simply done their patented somber head shake when asked about Houston and explained how much they respected the teams accomplishments---but the #76 SOS simply provided too weak a resume to warrant inclusion. Keep in mind---thats exactly what the Committee said about UCF's #72 ranked SOS in 2017 (which was 4 slots stronger than the SOS of the 2016 Houston schedule). Mark my words---barring some sort of massive reform in the way the Committee is structured----there will never ever be a G5 in the CFP during the 12 years of the current system.

There's one critical factor that IMO makes Kaplony right and you wrong about Houston 2016: When it comes to SOS, particularly for a G5 team, while the overall value is important, what's equally important are the best teams that you played.

Because with a G5 team with a gaudy record achieved against a soft schedule, the unanswered question is "could they have posted that record if they had to play some top teams"? Because that's typically who a G5 hasn't proved themselves against: If it comes down to 12-0 Alabama vs 12-0 Memphis or 12-0 North Texas, what is the difference? Both teams beat some cupcakes. Both teams also beat some decent teams, teams ranked between like 25 and 50. What Alabama probably did and Memphis or North Texas didn't was beat a couple TOP teams. Alabama probably beat a #5 Georgia or a #7 LSU. Memphis didn't play anyone like that, so that's the unanswered issue.

So it's better to beat three teams ranked 80, 90, and 5 than teams ranked 50, 50, 50. The latter set represents a tougher average/overall SOS, but provided no tests against top-level competition, the former did.

In 2016, Houston did just that. They happened to play Oklahoma and Louisville, teams that finished #7 and #13 in the final CFP rankings and beat both soundly. So I think there's little doubt that had they run the table, they would have made the top 4, instead of Washington. Houston actually beat a P5 champion, which is what the committee and the rest of us want to see.

In contrast, in 2017, UCF did not have those kinds of skins on the wall. While their overall SOS was slightly better than Houston's in 2016, they had not proven themselves against any national P5 powers. The only team they beat that finished in the final CFP rankings was #20 Memphis, and they did so unconvincingly, winning at home in double overtime while giving up like 700 yards or something. IIRC, the only other team they played that was ranked in the CFP at any time that year was USF, and again it was unconvincing - very close win at home while giving up a thousand yards or something. So not only did UCF not play any playoff contenders, the weakly-ranked teams they did play they beat by the skin of their teeth **.

Houston not just beat the #7 and #13 teams, they did so convincingly.

Nothing about UCF's 2017 season suggested that they could hang with other top 4 quality teams in the playoffs. In contrast, Houston's results would have.

To me, that is what's most important about their respective schedules, not the overall SOS.


** One could argue that UCF was hampered because anti-G5 bias meant that Memphis and USF were themselves under-rated. But the bowl results don't support that - Memphis lost their bowl game played at home to a 7-5 Iowa State team, while USF barely beat a 6-6 Texas Tech team in their bowl game.

Maybe - I'm not convinced though, even if they were number 6 at one point.

Without their 3 losses to Navy, SMU, and Memphis, that SOS number would have been even higher than the 76 it ended up being, probably in the 80s or 90s. I could see that turning into the committee's party line.

(08-29-2019 09:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:21 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’d just like to point out that the major conferences once sat down and agreed to send 6 conference champs and 2 at large teams to the aport’s biggest bowl games and they shared a crap ton of money as a result.

5-1-2 is the same set up; the only difference is that the 6th autobid goes to the champ of 1 of 5 conferences rather than a dedicated spot for the defunct Big East.

It worked then and it can work again. Sure there were years when a league, usually the ACC, sent a crappy team but it was part of preserving the peace.

You're kidding right? The BCS and CFP guarantee nobody a spot in the playoffs. They only guaranteed each AQ/P5 conference a spot in a Major/NY6 bowl. The only difference is that under the CFP, the G5 is guaranteed a spot in a NY6 bowl, whereas under the BCS a spot was assured only if the G5 team met certain rankings criteria.

A 5-1-2 playoff system would be a radical departure from both the CFP and BCS.

The original BCS granted access to 6 conference champs and 2 at large teams to college football’s biggest stage and highest dollar event series. This does the same thing but instead of only 2 teams being in the running for a title all 8 are.

The nuance is that the 6th conference winner is no longer pegged to one conference, but could be from any one of five G5 leagues.

The other real difference is that the winners have somewhere to advance to. The contest is different but that participants are roughly the same.

If you don’t like an expanded playoff then stop commenting on threads about them. Start a thread devoted to your commitment to however you think it should be.

I just don't understand why people hate conference champs guaranteed a spot? The conference champion is the only one that won it on the field. Why can't everything just be played on the field and determined that way. The NFL does it no one complains same goes for the NCAA basketball and baseball tournaments. I think the 5-1-2 is the best thing for everyone. If you are 8-4 Pitt and you win the ACC you get to go to the playoffs. Who cares if you are 8-4 you won the conference and you deserve to go. You might be the 8 seed but you get your chance. Some times a conference will have three or four solid teams and they will cannibalize themselves and keep themselves out of the playoff even though one of those teams might be the best in the country.

(08-28-2019 09:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:38 PM)Baylorbears11 Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:23 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  But, but, how DARE they imply the ragtag G5 can attend the beauty pageant!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

When a G5 champion earns it they'll get a bid. Houston likely would have had they not stepped on their own crank in 2016.

It’s always theoretical though. I won’t believe it until it does happen. Until then I will continue to support a format that allows all deserving teams a shot at the championship. That means undefeateds and conference champs. If you didn’t win your conference, tough ****.

When the playoff was announced folks said the ACC didn't have a chance to earn a bid very often, and it most certainly would require them being undefeated. Yet here we are with the ACC being one of the only two conferences to be included every year and in at least two of the years the ACC rep had a loss.

Making the playoff is supposed to be hard because being one of the four best programs in college football is hard. If you want a participation trophy play in a local rec league.

Keep in mind that in the 2000s the ACC was producing champs that were no where close to the top 4. Clemson and FSU being able to string together 13-0 or 12-1 seasons is a relatively new development. They had regularly been sending 2 and 3 loss teams to the BCS. Had this trend continued the 4 team playoff era would have been very unkind to the ACC.

The ACC sent a 4 loss FSU team whose starting QB had been thrown off the team to the Sugar Bowl one year.

(08-29-2019 12:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The nuance is that the 6th conference winner is no longer pegged to one conference, but could be from any one of five G5 leagues.

A bigger issue is that, instead of being one of college football's historic "haves", it would be one of CFB's historic "have-nots" (1). You're talking about the 1998-2006 BCS setup (4 bowls, not 4-plus-1), then the football Big East is Miami, BC, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, Pitt, West Virginia, Rutgers and Temple. With the exception of Temple, all of those schools are in P5 leagues now.

(1) Yes, yes, we hear you Houston and SMU of the late Southwest Conference, and Rice and Tulane for that matter, and Cincinnati and South Florida who had moments in the BCS-AQ-Conference sun.

(That said, I'm in favor of 5-1-2, I think 5-1-2 is the next iteration. I prefer a BCS-style formula to the committee, but that will be determined by whether there's a big enough controversy in the last few years of this cycle to tarnish the committee approach)

(08-29-2019 02:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-29-2019 12:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The nuance is that the 6th conference winner is no longer pegged to one conference, but could be from any one of five G5 leagues.

A bigger issue is that, instead of being one of college football's historic "haves", it would be one of CFB's historic "have-nots" (1). You're talking about the 1998-2006 BCS setup (4 bowls, not 4-plus-1), then the football Big East is Miami, BC, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, Pitt, West Virginia, Rutgers and Temple. With the exception of Temple, all of those schools are in P5 leagues now.

(1) Yes, yes, we hear you Houston and SMU of the late Southwest Conference, and Rice and Tulane for that matter, and Cincinnati and South Florida who had moments in the BCS-AQ-Conference sun.

(That said, I'm in favor of 5-1-2, I think 5-1-2 is the next iteration. I prefer a BCS-style formula to the committee, but that will be determined by whether there's a big enough controversy in the last few years of this cycle to tarnish the committee approach)

So the have nots should not be allowed to go to the playoff? Even if they are the best team?